BNUMBER:  B-277549 
DATE:  September 19, 1997
TITLE: Sillcocks Plastics International, Inc., B-277549, September
19, 1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Sillcocks Plastics International, Inc.

File:     B-277549

Date:September 19, 1997

Thomas Kaz for the protester.
Kerry L. Miller, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Bid in which required price was omitted was properly rejected by the 
agency as nonresponsive where the price, which provided the basis on 
which payments for additional required quantities would be calculated, 
was essential requirement of the solicitation.

DECISION

Sillcocks Plastics International, Inc. protests the rejection of its 
bid by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) under invitation for 
bids (IFB) No. 427-894.  Sillcocks contends that since its bid was 
low, it should have received the award. 

We deny the protest.

The IFB, issued June 26, 1997, sought bids on the production of 
1,000,000 
(+/- 25,000) plastic identification cards for use by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.  The delivery schedule specified shipment of the 
first 100,000 cards to arrive at the destination by July 24, 1997, and 
the remaining cards to arrive by August 7.  Bids were to include the 
cost of all materials and operations for the total quantity ordered.  
The IFB specifically provided that "[i]n addition, a price must be 
submitted for each additional 1,000 copies," which price was to be 
based on a continuing run, exclusive of all basic or preliminary 
charges.  This entry was not considered part of the price evaluation 
for purposes of award determination.  The IFB also included a 
preprinted bid sheet which provided blanks marked "BID," "Additional," 
and "Rate." 

Sillcocks submitted a bid for $45,700 for the basic quantity of 
1,000,000 and in the "additional" blank inserted the figure $1,142.50.  
In the "rate" blank, Sillcocks inserted the following:  ".25 For 
expedite delivery of first 100,000 cards."  While Sillcocks's bid was 
lowest for the base amount, the contracting officer found the 
additional rate information ambiguous.  Instead of providing a price 
as required for additional orders of 1,000 cards, Sillcocks included a 
dollar figure and rate for expedited delivery with no explanation as 
to their application to the base bid.  Because there was no clear 
additional per-1,000 price or rate, and the price information provided 
was ambiguous, the contracting officer rejected the bid as 
nonresponsive.  Aero Products Research, Inc. submitted the next low 
bid of $49,980 with the additional price of $46.40 per 1,000 cards and 
was awarded the contract.   

After receiving notice of the award to Aero, Sillcocks filed a protest 
with the GPO.  Upon the agency's denial of that protest, Sillcocks 
filed a protest with our Office.  Since more than 10 days had passed 
since the award, GPO did not stay performance of the contract, and 
delivery is now complete. 

A bid, to be responsive, must constitute an unequivocal offer to 
provide the exact items or services called for in the IFB, so that 
government acceptance of the bid will legally bind the bidder to 
perform the contract in accordance with all the material terms and 
conditions.  Hall/McCabe Realty, Inc., B-272875, Oct. 29, 1996, 96-2 
CPD  para.  162 at 3.  As a general rule, a bid must be rejected as 
nonresponsive if, as submitted, it does not include a price for every 
item requested by the IFB.  This rule reflects the legal principle 
that a bidder who has failed to submit a price for an item generally 
cannot be said to be obligated to furnish the item.  D.H. Kim Enters., 
Inc., B-261423, Sept. 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  145 at 2.  A bid also 
should be rejected as nonresponsive where prices required on a 
solicitation's bid schedule are missing and are necessary to calculate 
payments to the contractor.  Allbrite Office Cleaning, Inc., B-257188, 
June 10, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  363 at 2.

Sillcocks explains that "the expedite charges were separated such that 
if the US Government did not need the product as quickly, [it] would 
not be charged."  Sillcocks also argues that it should have been 
allowed to clarify these charges before rejection of its bid.  
Sillcocks further argues that whether the expedite figure is added to 
or subtracted from its base bid, its bid still would be lower than the 
awardee's bid. 

Sillcocks's arguments ignore the central defect in its bid:  the 
absence of any price per additional 1,000 copies.  The IFB clearly 
required the submission of a specific price for additional copies, and 
all other bidders provided a price per-1,000 copies.  While this price 
was not to be used in determining the award, the IFB contemplated the 
potential for a requirement of as many as 25,000 additional copies.  
Thus, the additional price was essential to calculate the cost of 
these potential card orders.  Because the omitted rate and price are 
to be used to calculate payments to the contractor, they are material 
requirements of the IFB and the protester's omission of that 
information renders its bid nonresponsive.  Allbrite Office Cleaning, 
Inc., supra.  

As the bid is nonresponsive, GPO correctly refused to permit the 
protester to explain the meaning of the prices it did include in the 
spaces provided for the additional per-1,000 price and rate.[1]  A 
nonresponsive bid may not be converted into a responsive bid by 
post-bid opening clarifications or corrections.  Lathan Constr. Corp., 
B-250487, Feb. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  107 at 3-4.  Moreover, while 
rejection of Sillcocks's bid may result in additional cost to the 
government for this procurement, it is well established that a 
nonresponsive bid cannot be accepted solely on the basis of its lower 
price; acceptance of such a bid would compromise the integrity of the 
competitive bidding system.  Allbrite Office Cleaning, Inc., supra.  
The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. In this regard, even the protester's explanation does not clarify 
the intent of its "expedite" rate.  First, Sillcocks's explanation is 
inconsistent with the plain delivery requirements of the IFB:  
delivery of 100,000 "on or before" a specified date, with the balance 
approximately 2 weeks later.  Yet the protester asserts that the 
expedite price would be subtracted from its base bid if the GPO did 
not require adherence to the stated schedule.  Under the 
circumstances, it would be unlikely, and improper, for GPO to relax 
its delivery schedule without providing other bidders the opportunity 
to submit bids in accordance with the new schedule.  Second, despite 
the protester's explanation, it is not clear from the bid whether the 
expedite figure is to be subtracted for later delivery or added for 
"expedited" delivery.  Finally, the figure and rate are ambiguous; the 
$1,142.50 figure is neither "25" nor ".25" percent of the basic bid 
($45,700).  Rather, this figure is 2.5 percent of the basic bid.  
Thus, without changing the decimal point, the contracting officer was 
unable to determine whether the amount to be added to (or subtracted 
from) the base bid was $11,425, $114.25, or the stated $1,142.50.